Archive for the ‘Tea Party’ Category

The incompetency of the Obama presidency has been a sad, if not interesting story to watch. During the early days the Administration’s blunders that included Solyndra crony capitalism, lack of follow-through on the BP oil spill and the Benghazi debacle, Obama’s Leftist allies including those in the mainstream media either ignored the issues or blamed them on “phony conspiracies” created by opponents

With the culmination of one crisis after another that have included the IRS targeting political opponents, the VA hospital catastrophe, the ill-advised and ill handled Bergdahl for terrorists exchange, and now the potential disintegration of Iraq, even some of Obama’s staunchest allies are starting to waiver. No more is this evident then with Leftist and former ardent Obama supporter MSNBC news commentator Chris Matthews.

In yet another sign that Matthews has become disenchanted with the incompetence of the Left in Washington, Matthews made some unusually positive comments about the Tea Party and conservative congressional candidate David Brat who recently defeated Congressman Eric Cantor in the Republican primary. Matthews’ comments included:

“Well, first of all, I don’t think you can assume that the liberals are smarter than the conservative professors. I think that’s crazy talk like that and it’s exactly the kind of attitude conservatives can’t stand. I don’t know which professor is more popular, but that doesn’t mean it’s a better professor, first of all.” [When asked about Brat and his intellectual skills during the interview.]

“Secondly, I was listening to Brat last night, I listened to him today, I think he’s very sophisticated for a politician. He’s certainly up to the ranks in most politicians I’ve ever dealt with. He speaks in a speculative manner, in an intellectual manner, he can handle any debate on this program or my program.”

“So this looking down our noses at Tea Party people has got to stop. They have a message, they are as American as any liberal is, and they are really angry at the failure of the system.”

Matthews is unusually on target and concluded that “… looking down our noses at Tea Party people has got to stop.” Translation: The Left’s grand experiment of the past six years that included significant growth in an already expansive government has failed. This will likely lead to a strong political reaction in the other direction and the American Left better accept it.

It is often proffered that the mainstream media has morphed into a propaganda wing for Leftist politics in more recent years. However, there is evidence that the Leftist bent of the media has been ongoing much longer, but perhaps previously in a more sophisticated and gentlemanly fashion.

The Boston Globe writer Jeff Jacoby has posted an interesting piece titled would “Democrats Embrace a JFK today?” Jacoby points out that while Kennedy has been canonized by the Left after his assassination, his politics were anything but Leftist.

When John Fitzgerald Kennedy became the 35th president of the United States, he championed many policies that are today promoted by the Tea Party. This included:

Across-the-board cuts of the personal and corporate tax rates.

Significantly cutting tariffs to promote international trade.

JFK once called city property taxes “confiscatory”.

As for big government programs, Kennedy said during his 1960 campaign: “I do not believe that Washington should do for the people what they can do for themselves through local and private effort.”

During his first inaugural address, Kennedy said: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” Just image a Leftist like Obama making such a statement.

Kennedy was also a proponent of a strong military. As president he said: “We must refuse to accept a cheap, second-best defense“. JFK significantly increased the military budget as a percentage of GDP.

In the decades since his assassination, the mainstream media has created the false narrative that Kennedy was a liberal. This was a deceptive attempt to take advantage of JFK’s martyrdom legacy to promote the Leftist agenda. However, JFK distanced himself from liberalism.

Look Magazine called JFK a “young, wealthy, and conservative John Fitzgerald Kennedy”. During an interview in 1950s, Kennedy was challenged by the media concerning his “true liberal” credentials to which JFK replied: “I’d be very happy to tell them I’m not a liberal at all .… I’m not comfortable with those people.” FDR’s widow, Eleanor, went so far as to publicly state that she could not back Kennedy as the Party’s presidential nominee.

JFK’s ideology indeed had more in common with today’s Tea Party than what is now promoted by the radical Left Democratic Party headed by Barack Obama. It is curious that JFK remains a hero of the Leftist media while the Tea Party only receives its scorn. This bizarre abuse by the media says a lot about its disingenuous behavior. The acquiescence of the academic intelligentsia to this dichotomy is one indication of its moral decline.

You got to give it to the Left’s ability to create the narrative (propaganda) within the media. Along with President Obama, the Left has painted Republicans as obstructionist, while at the same time created the narrative that they are bipartisan. How preposterous. Neither side (party) is bipartisan nor should they be. Political parties are created to support a political view(s). If Americans were indeed bipartisan there would be no need for multiple parties.

The word “bipartisan” is bantered around often by the Left and its allies in the media. This Blog proffers the view that bipartisanship inhibits the advancement of societal growth. Imagine if bipartisanship prevailed between Lincoln, Republicans and the proslavery Democrats prior to the US Civil War. The North would have allowed the South to continue the use of slaves. How about if prior entering World War II bipartisanship was used to satisfy the demands of isolationists?

Perhaps the best example of the failure of bipartisanship is the United Nations. It is so much easier to list its failures that its accomplishments.

One of the more outrageous and disingenuous claims of the Left is that the Tea Party is radical. If true then these Leftists must also believe that our Founding Fathers and the Constitution are radical. Main themes of the Tea Party include fiscal conservatism and smaller government. To paint these visions as radical is a horrifying aspect of how far this Country has descended into creeping socialism.

A recent exchange on CNN between, video below, started when reporter Michael Holmes called the Tea Party “radicals”. CNN’s Jim Acosta appropriately responded: “Well, Michael, I mean, first of all, let’s be careful about using the term ‘radical,’ because a lot of those folks feel like they’re standing on principle today, even though they didn’t come out on top in this.” It is obvious that Leftists believe that one must agree with their Progressive policies to be principled. What a convenient way to stop open debate.

The Left has created the narrative that Occupy Wall Street is the counter movement to the Libertarian-Conservative leaning Tea Party movement. The Left is also attempting to use the Occupy movement to further its political aims. Continuing down this radical path could lead an end of the modern-day Progressivism.

The New York Time reported today that President Obama’s political advisers are getting anise about the upcoming elections. In an effort to reverse what they see as huge losses for the Democrats, they are considering options that include an advertising campaign tying the Republicans in with the Tea Party, who they will portray as being made up of extremists.

The President’s proposed strategy is as flawed as his foreign policy strategy. The Tea Party is a grassroots movement made up of everyday Americans who see the government as radical. It is gaining traction throughout middle America. To attack the Tea Party the Democrats will need to attack America’s core values themselves. As the Times points out, “Except for Ms. O’Donnell in Delaware, Republican nominees that Democrats like to showcase as extremists – including in Senate races in Nevada, Colorado, Kentucky and even blue-state Connecticut – are even with their Democratic rivals in polls or ahead.”

When the Tea Party began, Liberals tried to marginalize the Tea Partiers yelled racial epitaphs during a protest in Washington that proved to be a lie. The American people are fed up with an overreaching government that is not responsive. The people have responded by first giving the Republicans a message, throwing out the some long-term leaches. This November it will be the Democrat’s turn to receive the message from the people. While the Democrat Party might ultimately get it, don’t expect the same from Obama who is perhaps the most tone-deaf politician to ever be elected to national office.

It is ironic that a most liberal president will ultimately be responsible for a conservative/Constitutional revolution in modern America. This reality was capped with an explanation point with the results of two Republican primaries this week, both of which resulted in “establishment” Republicans being tossed out in favor of insurgent candidates backed by the Tea Party.

First a footnote from the Left. In a New York Democrat race, scandal-plagued Charlie Rangel won his primary guaranteeing he will retain his long-held seat in Congress. For the Left it is business as usual, i.e. appoint politicians for life thereby creating a new type of royalty, irrespective of ethics.

Now back to the Republicans. A New York state political neophyte Carl P. Paladino won the gubernatorial primary over former Representative Rick A. Lazio. This stunning upset against an establishment Republican is yet another win for a Tea Party backed candidate who said after his victory: “We are mad as hell. They say I’m too blunt. Well, I am. And I don’t apologize for it. They say I’m an angry man, and that’s true. We’re all angry.” Paladino represents the pulse brewing in America. At the same time it is the establishment’s inability to read the tea leaves that is feeding the revolution.

Lazio’s defeat was joined by a shocker in Delaware where anti-establishment candidate Christine O’Donnell upset Republican “blue-blood” Michael Castle. While Ms. O’Donnell was endorsed by Sarah Palin, Senator Jim DeMint and the Tea Party, the Republican establishment fought hard to defeat her. Establishment Republicans wereincensed by O’Donnell’s victory with Karl Rove saying: “There’s just a lot of nutty things she’s been saying that just simply don’t add up. I’m for the Republican, but I’ve got to tell you, we were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate. We’re now looking at seven to eight. In my opinion, this is not a race we’re going to be able to win.” Mr. Rove, you don’t get it. This is about taking back the Country, not victory for a party. You ignore the fact that it was the failure of the Bush administration, of which you were a part, which led to the Obama victory in the first place.

The New York Times just reported that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal lied about his service record. The link to the full story is below. According to the Times, at a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Blumenthalsaid:

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam. And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it – Afghanistan or Iraq – we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

The Times also reported that Blumenthal never served in Vietnam and obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 that enabled him to avoid going to Viet Nam. He then completed his Harvard studies, pursued a fellowship in England, served as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, and ultimately took a job in Nixon’s White House. Then in 1970, he landed a spot in the Marine Reserve, guaranteeing he would not have to go to Vietnam.

Blumenthal is now running as a Democrat for the Connecticut Senate seat currently held by Christopher Dodd. Dodd, by the way decided not to run for reelection due to voter discontent with his ethics. But let us not be too harsh on Connecticut. It is not the only state with politicians who have difficulty with truth and ethics. This lapse is unfortunately all too common with our professional politicians who believe that the rules do not apply to their elitist group.

Blumenthal and Dodd are two additional reasons that the Tea Party continues to gain traction.

Last weekend the Tea Party made a loud statement in Utah. In an unusual political move they ousted three-term Senator Robert Bennett, denying him the Republican nomination to run for a fourth term. While Bennett had the backing of the Republican establishment and was introduced at the caucus by local hero Mitt Romney, he fell out of favor with the Tea Party and local Republicans. While conservative, Bennett’s votes for bailing out the banks and his co-authoring of a bipartisan healthcare bill were unpopular in Utah. The Senator also fell victim of the anti-incumbent rage of the electorate.

The Progressives in both political parties have misread the Tea Party movement since its inception. The Democrats viewed the movement as a collection of angry bigots who lack intelligence. As for IQ, a New York Times poll concluded that Tea Partiers have more education then the general population. As for their supposed bigotry, this is a narrative created by the Left and their mainstream media associates who fear the movement’s effect on their Progressive agenda. Utah’s anger is not directed at fellow citizens, but at a government that has overspent and overreached.

The Republicans also misread the Tea Party movement. Initially they saw it as a tool to increase their Party’s power. But as proven in the Utah, that will be the case only if Republicans go back to their fiscally conservative roots.

The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that is gaining traction, but still in its infancy. In many ways its development mimics the grassroots movement of the Left born in the 1960’s out of the electorate’s distaste for the Viet Nam War and the Nixon Administration. It would be ironic if the Tea Party became an historic movement due to the election and overreaching of our most Liberal President, Barack Obama.

During one of the debates in Congress on proposed Healthcare reform the Tea Party held a protest in Washington. Shortly after one of these sessions Congress some of the Congressmen that voted for the reforms chose to leave the building through an exit that required they walk through the Tea Party protest. These Representatives were jeered by the protestors.

One of the Congressmen that walked through the crowd was Andre Carson of Indiana who reported that during the walk the “N-Word” was used 15 times and that he needed police protection from the hostile Tea Partiers. This claim of racism became the narrative of the protesters by the mainstream media. This Blog reaction was, quite frankly, appalled by the reports and that the Tea Party’s legitimate protests were being hijacked by racists. The media’s narrative was in fact working.

Now there is strong evidence that Congressman Carson’s was not being honest with his claims. Posted below are video clips with audio of the Congressmen exiting the Capital and walking through the protests. Two things are clear in these recordings. First, the N-Word is not heard once, forgetting 15 times. Also, there is no evidence that any of the Congressmen were in fear of the protesters.

It seems that Congressman Carson and possibly others lied when they claimed racism against the protesters. Shame on you Congressman for race-baiting. Shame on this Blog for the knee-jerk reaction of believing the reports.

The charge of racism should never be used to further a political agenda. These videos exists and with studies by audio experts it can be determined if Carson was lying. If proven, the good Congressman should be expelled by the House of Representatives. But that isn’t a realistic possibility. Progressives have being pinning the charge of racism on those that disagree with them for years. They would never take an action that might limit their most powerful political message.